[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Thenewwwguy]

Barely.

fair enough

 

[nzcamel]

Soon. 21st of May I think.

Thx. I thought that there is preorder or sth.

At the end of the Maya first look. Are they actually aware that some of us would like to, but can't?

Spoiler :

 

[Grand-Admiral Thrawn]

I just want Hawai’i with kamekameha

they could have some cool volcano abilities and a war canoe uu

 

[PhoenicianGold]

i’ve heard a lot of Dihya for the Berbers talk

I think she's a dark horse.

Barely.

Also, we have two hussar uniques in the game. It's not impossible. Just complicated by how the Ottomans were implemented.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I just want Hawai’i with kamekameha

they could have some cool volcano abilities and a war canoe uu

i’d like to see something about uniting city states. We missed out on it with Maya but Hawaii could still do it bcs Kamehameha I united the four major isles

 

[PhilBowles]

I agree with most of this, but honestly, I’m glad georgia and colombia are in.

Colombia will probably serve as a conduit for Bolivar’s cult-of-personality, which is fine given Colombia is relatively historically influential beyond simply Gran Colombia (see: panama canal)

Georgia, while perhaps not the best choice, under Tamar, was a caucasus powerhouse, and while that may have been better represented by Armenia, Georgia isn’t a bad choice.

Colombia isn't the same state as Gran Colombia. Gran Colombia was, in essence, a Venezuelan empire that incorporated what are now Colombia and Ecuador. There isn't even a clear reason they couldn't have called the civ Venezuela and used Bolivar as the leader, but Gran Colombia is the name the community has tended to adopt.

I'm not arguing that either state is necessarily a bad choice, but neither would have been on the developers' radar as civs to add ahead of many that are missing if not for a fan community pushing them.

I think it's a bit myopic to presume that VI needs to adhere to some sort of "tradition,

Other than the marketing needs of a brand name, there's no reason other than tradition to have a Civ series at all. Civ VI is no closer mechanically to Civ I than games like Humankind are - maps are different, resources are different, factions have distinct rules they never did in earlier versions, there are entirely novel systems and resources, and basic elements of the first game like caravans are missing. All it has in common are things that are staples of this type of gameplay - tech progression, growth and production resources, and settling cities on a map. The only purpose of calling the game 'Civilization VI' is the existence of an established fanbase with expectations for what a "Civilization game" is based on common threads running through the series - i.e. tradition.

You could remove builder units altogether, as some similar games do. You could remove micromanagement of settlement by taking the Stellaris approach of having set colonisable sites (in that case planets, but Endless games do the same with provinces on maps based on a single world) on which you can click a 'build colony ship' button to settle. etc. etc. The only real reasons not to do those things are traditions that define what Civilization is as a series. The head designer of the card game Magic the Gathering has often given a talk in which he explains that the reason the game repeats so many of its effects and reprints cards routinely in every set is to provide a through-line that makes the game 'feel' like Magic.

Exactly the same applies to Civ, and is among other things why we always have Aztecs and Zulu rather than having them take a break every edition or two. It's why Gandhi is always the Indian leader, not to mention why he usually has a penchant for nuclear weapons.

" especially when it has clearly been bucking some civ traditions. We now have the HRE represented under Germany,

Civ IV is the only Civ game that has ever treated the HRE as separate from Germany - that was bucking the trend. Germany has always included the HRE in every other incarnation. Civ V had the Landsknecht as a German unique unit, and Germany was led by Frederick II in Civ II. The HRE has never been revisited as a separate civ likely due to fan pushback precisely because it was an unnecessary departure from the rest of the series.

and Carthage blobbed into the broader Phoenician culture.

Less blobbing it than simply renaming Carthage and expanding its city list. I agree it's an odd choice, given that for the most part recent Civ games have 'deblobbed' existing blobs and the city state mechanic worked well for representing the Phoenician city states in Civ V, but it's no more a departure from tradition than renaming 'The Vikings' Denmark in Civ V and Norway in Civ VI. It's the same long-established inclusion in the series under a new name.

Sumeria isn't Babylon renamed - Sumeria and Babylon have coexisted in three versions of the game to date.

If the game actually cared about "tradition," we wouldn't have Canada or Scotland or Australia or Georgia or Hungary because those "weren't empires."

Having factions in the game that weren't empires is, in fact, a Civ tradition stretching back to the first game - see my comments on the Zulu. Adding new civs does nothing to run against the game's tradition, and you aren't doing anything very novel by having 11 civs from Civilization in the game instead of 12. Developers' energies are better-spent in exploring novelty in gameplay. In practical terms calling a civ Civ X rather than Civ Y makes no gameplay difference to anything - the sole reason to name civs and leaders is to appeal to fan desires and expectations. The Maya civ we've just seen could as easily have been Babylon - it even has a unique unit appropriate to the era - with cosmetic differences but the same ruleset. Babylon is an expectation there's no good reason to defy.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Colombia isn't the same state as Gran Colombia. Gran Colombia was, in essence, a Venezuelan empire that incorporated what are now Colombia and Ecuador. There isn't even a clear reason they couldn't have called the civ Venezuela and used Bolivar as the leader, but Gran Colombia is the name the community has tended to adopt.

I'm not arguing that either state is necessarily a bad choice, but neither would have been on the developers' radar as civs to add ahead of many that are missing if not for a fan community pushing them.



Other than the marketing needs of a brand name, there's no reason other than tradition to have a Civ series at all. Civ VI is no closer mechanically to Civ I than games like Humankind are - maps are different, resources are different, factions have distinct rules they never did in earlier versions, there are entirely novel systems and resources, and basic elements of the first game like caravans are missing. All it has in common are things that are staples of this type of gameplay - tech progression, growth and production resources, and settling cities on a map. The only purpose of calling the game 'Civilization VI' is the existence of an established fanbase with expectations for what a "Civilization game" is based on common threads running through the series - i.e. tradition.

You could remove builder units altogether, as some similar games do. You could remove micromanagement of settlement by taking the Stellaris approach of having set colonisable sites (in that case planets, but Endless games do the same with provinces on maps based on a single world) on which you can click a 'build colony ship' button to settle. etc. etc. The only real reasons not to do those things are traditions that define what Civilization is as a series. The head designer of the card game Magic the Gathering has often given a talk in which he explains that the reason the game repeats so many of its effects and reprints cards routinely in every set is to provide a through-line that makes the game 'feel' like Magic.

Exactly the same applies to Civ, and is among other things why we always have Aztecs and Zulu rather than having them take a break every edition or two. It's why Gandhi is always the Indian leader, not to mention why he usually has a penchant for nuclear weapons.



Civ IV is the only Civ game that has ever treated the HRE as separate from Germany - that was bucking the trend. Germany has always included the HRE in every other incarnation. Civ V had the Landsknecht as a German unique unit, and Germany was led by Frederick II in Civ II. The HRE has never been revisited as a separate civ likely due to fan pushback precisely because it was an unnecessary departure from the rest of the series.



Less blobbing it than simply renaming Carthage and expanding its city list. I agree it's an odd choice, given that for the most part recent Civ games have 'deblobbed' existing blobs and the city state mechanic worked well for representing the Phoenician city states in Civ V, but it's no more a departure from tradition than renaming 'The Vikings' Denmark in Civ V and Norway in Civ VI. It's the same long-established inclusion in the series under a new name.

Sumeria isn't Babylon renamed - Sumeria and Babylon have coexisted in three versions of the game to date.



Having factions in the game that weren't empires is, in fact, a Civ tradition stretching back to the first game - see my comments on the Zulu. Adding new civs does nothing to run against the game's tradition, and you aren't doing anything very novel by having 11 civs from Civilization in the game instead of 12. Developers' energies are better-spent in exploring novelty in gameplay. In practical terms calling a civ Civ X rather than Civ Y makes no gameplay difference to anything - the sole reason to name civs and leaders is to appeal to fan desires and expectations. Babylon is an expectation there's no good reason to defy.

Wasn’t Gran Colombia’s capital Bogota and not Caracas? *just checked wikipedia, yes it is*

 

[PhilBowles]

Wasn’t Gran Colombia’s capital Bogota and not Caracas? *just checked wikipedia, yes it is*

I was going by the fact that Bolivar was Venezuelan and that Venezuela was created before the other states, and the base from which Gran Colombia expanded - Bolivar created Gran Colombia from a Venezuelan base. That he then relocated the capital I don't think is particularly significant - that prompted the modern Colombian state to treat Bogota as its capital, but then Indonesia adopting Dutch Batavia as its capital Jakarta doesn't make Indonesia a direct successor to the Netherlands.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I was going by the fact that Bolivar was Venezuelan and that Venezuela was created before the other states, and the base from which Gran Colombia expanded - Bolivar created Gran Colombia from a Venezuelan base. That he then relocated the capital I don't think is particularly significant - that prompted the modern Colombian state to treat Bogota as its capital, but then Indonesia adopting Dutch Batavia as its capital Jakarta doesn't make Indonesia a direct successor to the Netherlands.

Gran Colombia is easily just as much of a predecessor to Colombia or Ecuador as it is to Venezuela, and it could’ve been called simply Colombia and it would’ve worked.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I was going by the fact that Bolivar was Venezuelan and that Venezuela was created before the other states, and the base from which Gran Colombia expanded - Bolivar created Gran Colombia from a Venezuelan base. That he then relocated the capital I don't think is particularly significant - that prompted the modern Colombian state to treat Bogota as its capital, but then Indonesia adopting Dutch Batavia as its capital Jakarta doesn't make Indonesia a direct successor to the Netherlands.

There's a video of Gran Colombia from 2K China that shows the capital as Bogota.

 

[Jeppetto]

At the end of the Maya first look. Are they actually aware that some of us would like to, but can't?

Spoiler :

View attachment 555672

You can't subscribe to their YT channel?

 

[bbbt]

This is why I have a problem with Civ6 portraying him as a devious, backstabbing villain.

I mean he's known for his benevolence to the people he lead. Not necessarily to the rival leaders he conquered (outside of politically convenient occasions). Him being devious and backstabbing is directed towards the other leaders. Occupied cities getting no penalties is the representation of his manage/respect of the people he conquered.

I agree they could have done more emphasis with the later aspect, but I don't know that there's as big of a gulf between Cyrus and his in game portrayal as say Gandhi or Poundmaker.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I mean he's known for his benevolence to the people he lead. Not necessarily to the rival leaders he conquered (outside of politically convenient occasions). Him being devious and backstabbing is directed towards the other leaders. Occupied cities getting no penalties is the representation of his manage/respect of the people he conquered.

I agree they could have done more emphasis with the later aspect, but I don't know that there's as big of a gulf between Cyrus and his in game portrayal as say Gandhi or Poundmaker.

actually a very good point. they could’ve focused more on his governance than his war stuff though. there’s enough military focused early game civs

 

[Guandao]

To be honest it needs a complete redesign from the ground up, as does Gilgamesh the Ridiculous, so...I'm not hopeful. Hopefully the next time Sumer appears in Civ it 1) gets called Sumer, 2) gets a better-attested leader like Gudea, and 3) actually gets some research put into it instead of just "Epic of Gilgamesh lol."

Sumeria/Gilgy would be at home in a game like Age of Mythology....

Also, I remembered reading about evidence that the King of Lydia, Croesus was spared by Persia and ended up an advisor in the Shah's court. Not sure how true it is.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I just want Hawai’i with kamekameha

they could have some cool volcano abilities and a war canoe uu

I doubt we are going to see another Polynesian Civ, the Maori already has the wayfinding ability. But if they give that ability exclusively to the war canoes it could work out.

Colombia isn't the same state as Gran Colombia. Gran Colombia was, in essence, a Venezuelan empire that incorporated what are now Colombia and Ecuador. There isn't even a clear reason they couldn't have called the civ Venezuela and used Bolivar as the leader, but Gran Colombia is the name the community has tended to adopt.

Well actually the state then was called Colombia. It's just that historians today use the term "Gran Colombia" to differentiate the two. So there is more precedence for calling the civ Colombia instead of Venezuela.
Besides many on here, including myself, were pushing the name Colombia because it would be easier to find uniques across their history and not just from a short lived state.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Less blobbing it than simply renaming Carthage and expanding its city list. I agree it's an odd choice, given that for the most part recent Civ games have 'deblobbed' existing blobs and the city state mechanic worked well for representing the Phoenician city states in Civ V, but it's no more a departure from tradition than renaming 'The Vikings' Denmark in Civ V and Norway in Civ VI. It's the same long-established inclusion in the series under a new name.

It is more of a departure when the overall focus of the game seems to emphasize cultural continuity more than merely including a list of empires out of a textbook.

Sumeria isn't Babylon renamed - Sumeria and Babylon have coexisted in three versions of the game to date.

Very different versions of Sumeria, in games that had different priorities. Just presuming a general rule of thumb worked heuristically for prior iterations does not mean it applies to VI, especially when you aren't addressing specific facts indicating that the current circumstances have somewhat grown outside of what those heuristics were designed for. I don't entertain conclusory statements that just because things were some way means that ought to or will continue to be that way. Arguments from tradition, by themselves, are extremely flimsy, and basically amount to a thinly veiled plea against change because familiarity is comfortable.

Having factions in the game that weren't empires is, in fact, a Civ tradition stretching back to the first game - see my comments on the Zulu. Adding new civs does nothing to run against the game's tradition, and you aren't doing anything very novel by having 11 civs from Civilization in the game instead of 12. Developers' energies are better-spent in exploring novelty in gameplay. In practical terms calling a civ Civ X rather than Civ Y makes no gameplay difference to anything - the sole reason to name civs and leaders is to appeal to fan desires and expectations. The Maya civ we've just seen could as easily have been Babylon - it even has a unique unit appropriate to the era - with cosmetic differences but the same ruleset. Babylon is an expectation there's no good reason to defy.

I think the Zulu were really just a consequence of wanting another African civ and high school history books not covering much more than Egypt, Mali and Zulu. They were the closest thing capturing the "feel" of Africa in a series that was, for quite some time, very Euro-centric and orientalist. They were not selected to open design to non-empires; they were the closest thing to "that Africa civ" in the series' culturally insensitive early times. There was no agenda at the time to expressly make room for non-empires for most of the game's history.

Arguing that the Zulu or Iroquois somehow were hinting at and/or paved the way for a game that added Scotland, Georgia, Hungary, Canada, Australia, and Gran Colombia, is pretty flat-out wrong, given that neither was given the effort to "stretch" them into an empire; they were literally just map-fillers. And even as recently as V, aside from some more culturally sensitive map-fillers in North America with the Shoshone, the closest thing we had to "non-empires" were Venice and the Huns, which were still colloquially referred to as empires. The Polynesians, which were the same culturally insensitive map-filling that had always existed in the series, just in an as-yet unrepresented region of the world. And the Celts, which were the same as the Polynesians and probably the furthest thing from any recognizable polity or empire. Every other civ in the game was added against a straight-up empire meritocracy. Outside of maybe Poland, there were no "middle-ground" kingdoms and states which were reinterpreted under an expansionist model like VI has been consistently adding.

Here, every addition has been added to slightly expand the idea of an empire. Scotland as the unifier and brief seat of the British Empire. Georgia as a long-lasting pseudo-empire. Hungary as the core of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Canada and Australia as modern trans-continental superpowers. We also had the Mauryan and Angevin Empires clearly defined and added as alternate leaders, as well as the Delian and Peloponnesian Leagues. All of them were clearly defined polities with imperialistic and/or nationalistic agendas. All of them have a clear, unified cultural identity. Even the Cree, Mapuche, and Maori are all very expansionist, regionally domineering cultures that more comfortably fit the civ model than the Shoshone. That these civs, taken together, have been selected for new additions places VI's agenda far ahead of any prior iteration: way, way further along than just including the Zulu because Africa.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I really hope that the Maori are actually given a culturally meaningful ability in the future. Giving them an ability that would’ve fit one of the truly seafaring polynesian nations, like Tonga, ruins what they’re truly known for: mainly land combat, not sea faring. While their strong cultural focus is relevant, it is dampened by the dev’s choice to make works of writing inaccessible to them, which connotes a sense of primitiveness that is frustrating, as many other civ’s with no writing don’t have great works of writing blocked off from them. Also, for a civ known to have deforested the new zealand isles, being incentivized to not do so feels dumb.

In future iterations I’d rather see a civ that has amazing defensive military capabilities and maintains a strong culture game.


but again, I’ll defend the zulu. They are much like the Maori, in the sense that they are a small group, but they are very well known and worthy of being in the game because they’ve gained notoriety for being a native people who fought the european invaders.

Would I be ok with the Zulu being replaced by some other southern african people, like Great Zimbabwe or the Xhosa, in the future? of course. But the Zulu are the largest ethnic group in south africa and both they and Shaka have a storied past, that in my opinion, is worthy of being in civ

 

[nzcamel]

You can't subscribe to their YT channel?

This is clearly not "subscribing to their YouTube channel". Don't be dense. It is tied very specifically to the New Frontier Pass; or if I've got that wrong, maybe the Civ.com website. Of course they know that keen fans atm are all about the pass and not the Civ website; so misleading and unhelpful if that was their intent.

 

[Twisted_HBG]

This is clearly not "subscribing to their YouTube channel". Don't be dense. It is tied very specifically to the New Frontier Pass; or if I've got that wrong, maybe the Civ.com website.

I'd say that's almost definitely a call to action for people to subscribe to their YouTube channel considering the Subscribe Now text is right below the subscribe button. Besides, the New Frontier Pass is not a subscription, it's a thing you pay full price for straight away (or buy the DLC as it comes out, but that's still not subscribing).

 

[nzcamel]

I'd say that's almost definitely a call to action for people to subscribe to their YouTube channel considering the Subscribe Now text is right below the subscribe button. Besides, the New Frontier Pass is not a subscription, it's a thing you pay full price for straight away (or buy the DLC as it comes out, but that's still not subscribing).

You can't click on that "button". Do you even use YouTube? The main subscribe button for any YouTube channel on one of their video's is out of frame to the bottom right. No where near this panel on the left side of the video.

Okay fine. The pic above you can click on (not the "subscribe button" itself) and it is for their channel. Stupid of me. Also stupid of them.